28 May, 2015

Dear Media, stop getting copyright wrong!

I may keep adding links to this post, every time I see a news article that perpetuates the bullsh*t MYTH that once you post something online it's 'free for anyone to use.' And/or, an incorrect interpretation of a famous infringement case, (which often has the same effect as perpetuating the above mentioned myth). As well as all too common stories of media taking images from social media without permission, (instead of finding and paying the actual owner a fee to use them, which is how it's done legally and ethically).


The Guardian, 27 May 2015, Richard Prince v Suicide Girls in an Instagram War, QUOTE, (re: the outcome of the lawsuit Cariou v Prince): "Though Prince was ordered to destroy the pictures, he won an appeal, with the court ruling that Cariou’s copyright had not been infringed." 

Um, no...the appeals court ruled SOME of the images were not infringing, and sent some back to the district court, but the case settled before there was a decision. One of the images sent back was the guy holding a blue guitar, which some media sources use as an illustration for the case without stating clearly that it was one of the images sent back to court. The misinformation tells the public that you can take anything you want and change it little or not at all and it's ok. This is wrong. Furthermore, Cariou was very unusual compared to similar court decisions, and mostly carries weight in its district, not everywhere. Expect future cases to argue that the court got Cariou wrong. Same goes for the other articles that got Cariou's outcome wrong.

Washington Post, 25 May 2015, A reminder that your Instagram photos aren't really yours, Quote: "This month, painter and photographer Richard Prince reminded us that what you post is public, and given the flexibility of copyright laws, can be shared — and sold — for anyone to see. ... Although Cariou won at first, on appeal, the court ruled that Prince had not committed copyright infringement because his works were “transformative.”"


See above re: Cariou. As far as what you post being public, this is another example of someone muddying the waters about the difference between publicly accessible and public domain. See the links on copyright myths, etc, for info on what the public domain is, and isn't. Absolutely no excuse for journalists not to know this.

PBS, 25 Nov 2013, Photographer awarded 1.2 million from Media companies that lifted images off Twitter


The Copyright Zone's duo of photographer and lawyer also seemed to be annoyed at the repeated myths in the media. Quote: "It is not accurate to state that putting something on Instagram makes it Public Domain"

US Copyright Office FAQ's:

Copyright Statutes, Title 17 of the US Code:

Ruth Carter, attorney, 25 May 2015, Richard Prince's New Portraits; Art or Infringement? Carter writes on why she feels Richard Prince's use of the Instagram photos without permission would not likely succeed in court as "fair use."

Kent State University, on copyright, Fair Use, Plagiarism:

Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin, Ten Common Copyright Permission Myths:

Public Domain Sherpa, 10 common misconceptions about the public domain:

Plagiarism Today, 13 May 2015, "Does Facebook Really Own Your Photos?"

02 March, 2015

Spring 2015 shows and news

A couple of my brick chickens, 2015

This year, gallery owner Laura Dragon, {9} The Gallery, asked me if I was going to enter anything in their theme show, "MOVE!" 

As usual, when presented with a theme, I drew a blank. However, my husband remembered I'd made these wheeled sculptures out of toy building bricks last year. I sent Laura a picture and she wanted them in the show. So, I rebuilt some old ones and made some entirely new ones, and showed 10 of them in her gallery on Grand Avenue, Phoenix, in February! I'm leaving them there at least thru Art Detour weekend, (Mar 6-8), since there should be some great traffic then, and they are tiny and priced right for impulse purchases. They are glued so they won't fall apart just from picking them up!

Show poster for Everything After, Mar. 2015, Phoenix

I'll also be having a 2 person show with Jared Aubel, at R. Pela Contemporary Art, 335 W. McDowell, in Phoenix, thru the month of March! 

Jared has several large paintings that he's offering reprints of. I will have over 100 pieces! Most are small, my miniature work. But, 19 are 'thriftstore makeovers,' where an artist alters a second hand find, putting a modern spin on it. I used mostly reprints of old classics from the 1700s thru 1800s. Ah, if only I could find one of those rare original paintings worth a million bucks when I'm in a thriftstore! 

This new bent started last year when I was starting to comb thriftstores for the frames, since some really nice, even vintage, frames could be found very reasonably priced. As opposed to the imported junk in stores that I was becoming increasingly unhappy with as far as quality. Anyway, I had bought a frame that had a Rembrandt reprint in it, in kind of bad scuffed up shape. But on a whim I added birds to the reprint and even was able to fix the scuffs by retouching them with paint. I popped it back in its frame and it sold right away. I did another and that sold too, so the gallery owner of R Pela, Robrt Pela, asked me to do more for a 2015 show. I did, and that's what you'll find at "Everything After," in March. There are extended weekend hours for Art Detour.

Creature drying, wet clay stage, 2015

I've been getting back into ceramics since last fall. 

So far, I've made a number of usable bowls, creatures, chickens, and birds. I plan to keep taking it, and since I'm getting into more 3D stuff again, hope that by next year I'll have enough significant sculptural pieces to offer them in a show, too!
I blog about my art more often on my Wordpress page: https://cindyschnackel.wordpress.com/